LONDON–The London-based Privy Council has dismissed an appeal by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago (CBTT) after it had omitted a local insurance company from a competitive bidding process regarding the sale of the traditional insurance portfolios (TIPS) of the Colonial Life Insurance Company (CLICO) and British-American Insurance Company (Trinidad) Ltd (BAT).
In 2009, the Central Bank assumed control of both insurance companies following their collapse and adopted a resolution strategy to ensure financial stability. As part of that resolution strategy, the Central Bank decided to sell CLICO and BAT’s TIPs” to an insurance company that would be capable of managing them into the future.
The Central Bank decided to sell the TIPs via a competitive bidding process.
Maritime is considered one of the largest insurance companies in Trinidad and Tobago and took part in the competitive bidding process of CLICO and BAT’s TIPs organized by the Central Bank.
At the end of that process, the Central Bank decided to award the sale of CLICO and BAT’s TIPs to Sagicor Life Inc (Sagicor).
But Maritime launched several complaints regarding the bidding process, including that the sale award to Sagicor was irrational and that the procedure adopted was unfair.
It brought an application for leave for judicial review of the Central Bank’s decision to award the sale of CLICO and BAT’s TIPs to Sagicor. Also, it sought constitutional redress regarding alleged violations of its rights under Sections 4(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.
But on April 6, 2020, the High Court granted Maritime’s application for leave to apply for judicial review. It awarded Maritime an interim injunction to prevent the Central Bank from progressing with the sale of the TIPs to Sagicor pending the outcome of Maritime’s judicial review proceedings.
The Central Bank appealed, and on February 17, last year, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Central Bank’s appeal by a majority.
The Court of Appeal also granted final leave to the Central Bank to appeal to the Privy Council, the country’s highest court.
In its ruling after hearing the matter in July this year, the Privy Council said it considers that the appeal in respect of the constitutional challenge is not made out there has been no application to strike out that challenge.
“Furthermore, there is evidential material supporting the challenge so that even if the appellant had made an application to strike out the constitutional challenge, the Board would have dismissed that application,” it added.
“In conclusion, the Board considers that not only is there an arguable case with a reasonable prospect of success that the appellant’s oversight of the bidding process and its subsequent approval of the sales was amenable to judicial review, but also that it was amenable to challenge, though the exact public law duties engaged are to be determined at the hearing on the merits.
“This ground of appeal does not meet the threshold of some exceptional circumstance establishing plainly that leave should not have been granted. Rather the courts below were correct about the amenability ground. The Board considers that this ground of appeal is not made out,” The Privy Council added.
and then 
